Tim,
Per your request below here are some comments pertaining to the section you mention below. * The section seems to hint at two extremes stable on one end and very dynamic i.e. at each CER reboot. I think it is important to note that there is middle ground here and that providers typically have good reason for requiring prefix changes, largely related to network capacity management. It is not clear to me if this need to be called out in the text, however, I thought you should know. * Agreed regarding /64 subnet lengths * This section does not differentiate between a residential service and a commercial or SOHO service. Is this outlined elsewhere in the draft? Does it need to be? * Note - some devices today can only utilize a /64 and nothing more these would not break. * No NPTv6 please * ULAs support could be introduced at a later date * Agreed regarding bridging avoidance * How is "relatively stable prefix" defined? * Good text regarding PIA * Regarding renumbering also note that operators take precautions to ensure this is seamless as well including lease time lowering in advance of the renumbering event. We have been doing this for years. * Forced renumbering for privacy sounds unfortunate but based on various emails I have seen lately this seems to be something that must be supported. * Agreed that service discovery is essential I hope these comments are useful, I recognize I was not overly verbose. I hope this is a feature not a bug. Please let know if you wish to discuss further. John -----Original Message----- From: Tim Chown <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 5:56 AM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-shishio-v6ops-dpvt > >On 26 Feb 2013, at 14:07, "Brzozowski, John" ><[email protected]> wrote: > > >[jjmb] incorrect I have both, just stating that I have both. Apologies if >I was not clear. I also have a good # of home routers actively using IPv6 >enabled broadband today, ~3%. > > > > >Congratulations, btw. That must be a large number when converted to real >customers :) > > >The homenet architecture assumes a CPE rather than a single host. It >discusses ISP allocations in section 3.4.1 of >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-homenet-arch-07. As that text > is in WGLC, any comments on that section would be welcome (preferably on >the homenet list). > > >Tim
_______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
